S11_ From instruments to systems: Evaluating the private sector’s increasing role in development, climate and market transformation
S13_ How is emerging artificial intelligence intersecting with evaluation and democracy? Towards new practice and adoption
S11_ From instruments to systems: Evaluating the private sector’s increasing role in development, climate and market transformation
S13_ How is emerging artificial intelligence intersecting with evaluation and democracy? Towards new practice and adoption
S12_ From principles to practice: a shared framework for responsive evaluation
Claudio Alberti, Verena Gantner
Rationale and Objectives
Across Europe, in both domestic policymaking and European development co-operation, evaluators increasingly operate in politically constrained environments. Pressures on independence, declining budgets, limits on participation, restricted access to data, and heightened risks for already marginalised stakeholders affect how evaluation is commissioned, conducted, and used. In such contexts, responsiveness, understood as listening to interested partiesand amplifying voices often left unheard, is both essential and difficult to achieve.
This strand aligns closely with the conference theme. It examines how OECD evaluation norms have shaped evaluation policy and practice in Europe and development co-operation, how they have been adapted across contexts, and can be leveraged to enable responsible responsiveness in politically constrained environments. Rather than treating standards as static or technocratic, the strand approaches them as shared normative frameworks that provide a common language and basis for learning, while remaining adaptable to context.
The strand pursues three interlinked objectives: first, to examine how evaluation quality standards and principles perform in contexts of restricted civic space; second, to explore how shared frameworks can help address political interference, ethical risk, exclusion, and pressures on methodological rigour; and third, to foreground evaluation capacity development as a condition for applying standards with judgement, flexibility, and sensitivity over time. These objectives form the common thread linking the five panels, which move from conceptual framing, to applied challenges related to equity and participation, to comparative learning across contexts, and finally to forward-looking discussions on sustaining responsive evaluation practice.
This strand aligns closely with the conference theme. It examines how OECD evaluation norms have shaped evaluation policy and practice in Europe and development co-operation, how they have been adapted across contexts, and can be leveraged to enable responsible responsiveness in politically constrained environments. Rather than treating standards as static or technocratic, the strand approaches them as shared normative frameworks that provide a common language and basis for learning, while remaining adaptable to context.
The strand pursues three interlinked objectives: first, to examine how evaluation quality standards and principles perform in contexts of restricted civic space; second, to explore how shared frameworks can help address political interference, ethical risk, exclusion, and pressures on methodological rigour; and third, to foreground evaluation capacity development as a condition for applying standards with judgement, flexibility, and sensitivity over time. These objectives form the common thread linking the five panels, which move from conceptual framing, to applied challenges related to equity and participation, to comparative learning across contexts, and finally to forward-looking discussions on sustaining responsive evaluation practice.
Strand Overview
Panel 1 focuses on responsiveness as a quality challenge in politically constrained environments. It frames responsiveness as a core evaluation issue where political sensitivity affects independence, participation, and access to data. The panel will feature contributions from the OECD, DEval, EBRD, and philanthropic organisations such as the Ford Foundation.
Panel 2 examines shared standards and principles as enablers of responsive evaluation. It explores how standards can guide adaptive and ethical practice rather than function as compliance mechanisms. The panel will feature contributions from the Swedish Expert Group for Aid Studies, the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, IOB Netherlands, the OECD, and the EIB.
Panel 3 addresses responsiveness, equity, and participation under constraint. Focusing on inclusion, voice, and do no harm, it explores how evaluators navigate participation when engagement is limited or risky. The panel will feature contributions from AfrEA, the Austrian Development Agency, the OECD, and philanthropic organisations. Call B submissions are particularly encouraged from civil society organisations, regional evaluation associations, and scholars examining equity, ethics, and power in evaluation practice.
Panel 4 brings Europe and development co-operation into dialogue through comparative lessons. It compares how responsiveness and quality standards are applied across institutional and political contexts. Contributions will include national evaluation units in European foreign and development ministries, including Ireland and the UK FCDO, alongside the EIB.
Panel 5 focuses on building capacities for responsive and equitable evaluation. It examines evaluation capacity development at individual, organisational, and system levels. Contributions will feature the Belgian Development Cooperation Evaluation Office, the CoE Bank, national foreign ministries, and DAC-related professional networks. Call B submissions are encouraged from training institutions, early-career and emerging evaluators, and organisations supporting professional development in politically sensitive environments. This strand welcomes contributions that critically engage with evaluation quality standards and principles in dynamic or politically constrained contexts Submissions addressing responsiveness, equity, ethical decision-making, adaptive methods, and capacity development, drawing on empirical cases, methodological innovation, or reflective practice in Europe and other regions, are encouraged. Contributions from scholars and practitioners with diverse backgrounds and experiences, including early-career and emerging evaluators, are welcomed.
Panel 2 examines shared standards and principles as enablers of responsive evaluation. It explores how standards can guide adaptive and ethical practice rather than function as compliance mechanisms. The panel will feature contributions from the Swedish Expert Group for Aid Studies, the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, IOB Netherlands, the OECD, and the EIB.
Panel 3 addresses responsiveness, equity, and participation under constraint. Focusing on inclusion, voice, and do no harm, it explores how evaluators navigate participation when engagement is limited or risky. The panel will feature contributions from AfrEA, the Austrian Development Agency, the OECD, and philanthropic organisations. Call B submissions are particularly encouraged from civil society organisations, regional evaluation associations, and scholars examining equity, ethics, and power in evaluation practice.
Panel 4 brings Europe and development co-operation into dialogue through comparative lessons. It compares how responsiveness and quality standards are applied across institutional and political contexts. Contributions will include national evaluation units in European foreign and development ministries, including Ireland and the UK FCDO, alongside the EIB.
Panel 5 focuses on building capacities for responsive and equitable evaluation. It examines evaluation capacity development at individual, organisational, and system levels. Contributions will feature the Belgian Development Cooperation Evaluation Office, the CoE Bank, national foreign ministries, and DAC-related professional networks. Call B submissions are encouraged from training institutions, early-career and emerging evaluators, and organisations supporting professional development in politically sensitive environments. This strand welcomes contributions that critically engage with evaluation quality standards and principles in dynamic or politically constrained contexts Submissions addressing responsiveness, equity, ethical decision-making, adaptive methods, and capacity development, drawing on empirical cases, methodological innovation, or reflective practice in Europe and other regions, are encouraged. Contributions from scholars and practitioners with diverse backgrounds and experiences, including early-career and emerging evaluators, are welcomed.
